The role government policies have in local and regional differences in economic performance; strategies governments and non-profits use to evaluate economic development policies; topical focus on a range of economic development policies, including land use, infrastructure, workforce development, and education.

We currently teach Economic Development Policy under the temporary course number POLI 778. We want to assisgn this course a permanent, 500 level designation, since the topic is so important for upper-level undergraduates and graduate students interested in professional careers in public policy.

The syllabus must include the official course description from the Bulletin. You can have a separate "Course Overview" that expands and extends the description, but you have to have the description unchanged from the Bulletin.

While I did not notice anything else that will interfere with the approval of this new course proposal, you might want to check the updated ACAF 2.03 for the exact requirements of the syllabus. A direct link to this policy is http://www.sc.edu/policies/ppm/acaf203.pdf.

The distinction between undergraduate and graduate student expectations and grade scale is not sufficient.

You designate a learning outcome that is unique to the graduate students enrolled in the class, and yet, all students appear to be responsible for the same assignments with the same grade scale. There should be something more than everyone completes the same tasks with graduate students just doing more and better. They typically are responsible for doing something beyond what the undergraduates do. This could be a longer paper, addition of more analysis, etc.

Please consider a more explicit and different description of the final paper for undergraduates vs. graduates, and a separate point designation. Using the same grading scale would be fine.

Perhaps:

Task UG (%) Grad (%)

Participation and Attendance - 10 10

Exam #1 25 20

Exam #2 25 20

Paper 30 40

Presentation 10 10

A second issue was identified. There were some minor types in the syllabus that should be addressed.

Given that we are now in the Fall 2017 semester,

Please address the above and return this proposal, through all the channels, by August 28, 2016 at noon in order to be considered for approval by the Faculty Senate at the December meeting. Should your proposal not reach the committee by the stated deadline, the next Curricula and Courses review cycle will begin in September 2017. We are looking forward to your making this cycle.

Thank you for submitting your proposal to the Committee on Curricula & Courses. We are moving your proposal forward to the Faculty Senate. It is recommended someone from the department attend the next Faculty Senate meeting in case there are questions from the floor regarding your proposal.

We appreciate your patience and commitment to undergraduate and graduate education.

Best regards,

John Gerdes, Chair

Faculty Senate Committee on Curricula and Courses

Approved by Faculty Senate Committee on Curricula and Courses; Forwarded to Full Faculty Senate for Approval

Added to Approval queue on Sep 19, 2017 9:05 AM

Responded on Oct 11, 2017 8:54 AM by GERDES, JOHN

Approval 13

Faculty Senate Office (Forward to Full Senate)Status:Acknowledged

Received by Faculty Senate; Added to agenda of next Faculty Senate meeting for vote of Approval

Added to Approval queue on Oct 11, 2017 8:54 AM

Responded on Oct 13, 2017 9:25 AM by DUDLEY, LUDELLA

Approval 14

Faculty Senate Office (Full Senate Vote)Status:Accepted

Approved by Full Faculty Senate; Forwarded to Registrar for addition to catalog